Wikipedia:Thread-mode disclaimer

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcut WP:THREADMODE

This page in a nutshell: If someone has directed you to this page, they are probably indicating they reserve the right to refactor their own posts (within reason), and have a permissive attitude about talk-page refactoring in general (within reason).

All comments I make are works in progress and are subject to change without notice. I

my comments a lot. Sometimes I use delete and insert markup, but sometimes I don't consider this reasonable, much less necessary. I will sometimes modify my comments even after people have replied to them. If I make a modification of a comment in a manner which I feel might be misleading, I will use the aforementioned markup, add a note at the end of my post, respond to someone's pre-revision comment with a note that I have revised, or otherwise prevent confusion. If you want to reply to a comment of mine, feel free to form a response which stands alone and post it separately, rather than forming a thread, if it bothers you that I do not strictly follow "thread-mode" discussion (in which every edit to a discussion is a new post).

This is a wiki; let's use the features it provides

A wiki provides the ability to modify your comments after you've written them, and the ability to combine comments from multiple people into one. In many cases, especially where there is a well established concept, it seems most efficient not to form a thread at all. The concept is similar to that of DoubleWiki, although it's more like MultiWiki, and uses the same page, rather than different ones. It is also used extensively on Everything2, where thread mode is not really available.

A wiki also provides the ability to sign your username and a timestamp (with four tildes: ~~~~), and add a new timestamp (with 5 tildes). If I refactor my comments, I may update the timestamp by: deleting the old signature entirely and replacing it; adding a textual note (examples: "Edited: ~~~~~", "[Comment edited after reply, ~~~~~]", "Clarified per request below, ~~~~~", etc.); striking out the old timestamp and inserting a new one; or just replacing the original timestamp. In some cases, I may leave the old timestamp as-is if the change was minor, such as a typo fix.

Refactoring my comments

The above refers to me refactoring my own comments. Generally I'd prefer that people don't refactor my comments for me, other than as permitted by

), usually to fix a technical problem like bad markup.

If my comment is in response to you, and you delete that comment, I'm generally okay with you deleting my response. But if you do so, please leave a message on my user talk page, and don't delete the same comment more than once. If I re-add it (often in edited form to no longer be a reply to you in particular), I want to keep it.

If I've made an obvious typographical error, I will not mind if you fix it, though doing to is discouraged by WP:TPG, and other editors may object and even revert you. If you do refactor a comment of mine, please notify me on my user talk page; what you think was an error may not have been. If I revert your change to my comment, do not re-revert to your version.

I generally won't mind if you

capacity.

It's also likely to be fine by me if you neutrally refactor lengthy response commentary that includes minem from a short comments (poll or "!voting") section to an extended discussion section at an

or similar discussion. I reserve the right to leave behind a short pointer, e.g., "[Detailed reply by UserName moved to the [[#Extended discussion]] section]", or to revert you if I disagree with relocating my reply.

I also don't mind if you split a section into two sections for topical clarity or just a convenience break, at or near my post, as long as it does not result in a confusing situation, such as making it look like I did not reply to someone.

Copying my comments

If you decide to copy or quote a comment of mine, in whole or in part, please put it in quotation marks, a quotation template ({{

}} for long), or italics – and attribute it to me. But don't add my signature; rather, use a format such as 'UserName said: "Quoted text here"'. My signature is meant for things which I write in the format I present them, perhaps with exceptions for minor editorial corrections. If the original timestamp is contextually important, you can copy my sig and timestamp, as long is it is within the quotation marks or other quote markup along with the rest of my text. In all cases, indicate your own necessary editorial changes with square brackets, including elision (e.g.,: "When writing about cats, dogs, […], etc. do not anthropomorphize.") It is not necessary to preserve links and other markup when quoting text.

Moving my comments

Moving my comments in their entirety is generally fine, unless you're doing it for some type of evil purpose. Specifically, moving an entire discussion to an archive page and linking to that archive page is absolutely fine by me. So is moving the discussion to a more appropriate venue (please leave a pointer behind; the template {{Moved discussion to}} exists for this). Note that if you keep the original where it is, you're copying, not moving. But don't overthink it; if the original has been closed or hatted rather than outright deleted, but otherwise effectively moved, consider it a move.

This is all just a request

None of this is policy, nor is it intended to be such. I think most of my requests above are actually expansive of normal procedures (not to mess with other people's comments without good reason), so I don't see it as becoming a problem. Use

.

Strictly threaded discussion has a place, too

There's nothing wrong with thread mode, per se – always adding a new post rather than revising – and sometimes thread mode makes the most sense. But we've also seen situations where thread mode has failed miserably. Sometimes it's intentional, because one side insists on making circular arguments. Other times it's more likely not intentional (e.g., newbies who don't understand our posting norms). Regardless, a discussion can still stray way off the original point. The biggest problem with thread mode is that it doesn't require people to make complete arguments. But really, the question isn't one of strictly threaded versus threaded with occasional refactoring versus unthreaded. It's more a question of whether people are allowed, even expected, to modify their original statements. There is no policy or guideline that prohibits doing so. Some people

. There is a strong Wikipedia community presumption that people are allowed to do as they will with their own posts and not with those of others.

• Doesn't this behavior violate
  WP:REDACT
  ?
  • No. Just read it. And see
    WP:Common sense
    .
• This approach makes it difficult to reply.
  • Actually this method doesn't change your ability to reply at all.
• But you might make me look stupid.
  • This is an argument that is made when a reply makes an objection and I then respond to that objection by revising my post. As noted above, I will not do this (except by accident) without some annotation of the revision. If you'd like, I can remove your objection after I address it; but I assume that people don't like me changing their comments much less deleting them. So feel free to remove your objection yourself, after it is no longer valid. Why waste readers' time looking at something phrased poorly, followed by a request for clarification, followed by the clarification? Why not just have the reader read the clarified statement from the beginning?
• An already-clarified statement followed by an unanswered and inexplicable request for clarification is just confusing.
  • As noted above, I will not do this (except by accident) without some annotation of the revision.
• How do you reply to a comment that might change any time, and that certainly will change if you make any effective criticism of it?
  • Depends if your purpose is to
    win an argument, or to convince others of your point and work toward consensus
    . If your only purpose is to win, I'd suggest a debate team, not Wikipedia. If your purpose is to form consensus with others and move forward productively, then having someone change their comment in response to your criticism seems evidence that you have succeeded. Just respond the same way you would otherwise. That said, I will probably not change my post to address a criticism in a non-obvious way, and may well not change it at all, but reply below your post in a threaded manner. Self-refactoring is not what I do every time, just when it seems the most practical approach.

Template

• {{Thread mode}} – A notice template to add to your user and/or user talk page (points to this essay by default, though you can point it at a custom one in your user space).

This text was initially adapted from a personal disclaimer by Anthony (used with permission).